May 6, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:Time to go
The Economist is calling on Rumsfeld to resign. I concur. The mission in Iraq is being compromised by the hideous revelations about Abu Ghraib; the only way to repair the damage is for responsibility to be taken at the highest levels. And not the fake "I'm accountable but I'm not going to, y'know, be called to account" responsibility of Janet Reno, but real, honest to God, "Somethine went wrong on my watch, and I will suffer the penalty" responsibility. For the good of his country, it is time for Don Rumsfeld to go.
Posted by Jane Galt at May 6, 2004 1:24 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksJane, you've got to be kidding me. Donald Rumsfeld did not give an order to do this and unless he had direct knowledge of this happening and didn't do anything about it, what you're asking for is ceremony and not 'taking responsibility'.
Do you think that the entire chain of command should be fired as well. The private, sergeant, the captain, colonel, generals, etc? Or do you simply want to snipe at the most visible person with the furthest detachment to the culprits?
What needs to happen is each member of this debacle is identified. Their direct supervisors and their management should be held accountable. Outside of that, how can you expect someone to have direct knowledge of people multiple levels deep? It's like firing the CEO of a company because a janitor's mistake.
I'm all for severe punishment of the offenders, but I think too many people are making this to be a political issue when it is not.
Besides, those who hate America will hate us if Rummy is employed or not. Even John "Yes today, no tomorrow" Kerry won't make them love us.
You're confusing issues of justice with issues of effectiveness.
Trent Lott may or may not have been expression nostalgia for segregationism when he made his laudatory speech about Strom Thurmond. I, for one, find it entirely plausible that he simply got too wrapped up in the Senate tradition of florid over-complementarity of fellow politicians to realize exactly what his speech sounded like; I can think of more than one occasiona when I have said, or been taken to have said, something horrifyingly unintended.
But it doesn't matter. Trent Lott could no longer be an effective leader either of his senate, or his party, once those remarks were public. He was fatally compromised, and he needed to go.
What happened at Abu Ghraib may have been the rogue actions of a few wing-nuts, or it may have been, as Mr Hersh is arguing at the New Yorker, the policy of someone much higher up. Either way, our ability to complete the mission in Iraq has been dangerously compromised, and Don Rumsfeld's continuing presence at the pentagon is now more of a liability than an asset.
And do I believe that the chain of command that is ultimately responsible for the appearance, in international news media, of photographs of a man hooded and wired as if for electronic torture, putting the US in the same PR boat with the worst sort of third-world dictatorships, should be held responsible for this? Damn straight.
I couldn't disagree more. Rumsfeld didn't know about it. Rumsfeld didn't order it. Rumsfeld is the right person for the job.
The commander or general who didn't notify the higher command should be let go and should apologize.
I am 100% against the advice that Rumsfeld should go. It would be like calling for a governor to resign (who has brought a state's academic standards and teacher's merits up) because a teacher in the state abused students in a classroom. And if the governor didn't know about it, order it or is dead set against it, then why should the governor be made to resign.
The people who committed the acts need to be held responsible. Just like 9/11. The Democrats who are trying to say that Bush is responsible for 9/11 in some way, gloss over the acts of the 19 hijackers themselves.
The police can't protect every homeowner and individual. The government can't protect every citizen from terrorists. The people responsible for the bad acts need to held accountable.
I have watched Rumsfeld on C-SPAN for 3 years now. I think he is what this country needs. I have watched the disrespectful pentagon press reporters ask assinine questions, ask questions without perspective, ask questions with untruthful premises and Rumsfeld has handled them beautifully.
To the contrary, there were folks like Christine Todd Whitman who didn't understand science, and catered toward fear mongerers, folks like Norman Mineta who block needed airline security measures like "profiling" and weapons for pilots (interestingly Ben Veniste one of the 9/11 investigators himself wondered why we didn't profile certain individuals - calling into question why the Bush administration failed to know a terrorist or two). ..... It's always interesting to see liberals like Veniste tell others that they should've used a tactic that they would've screamed against if they did do it. .... Like invade Afghanistan before 9/11.. as if that would've stopped the hijackers who were already in this country.
If someone (maybe you Jane) can point to a fireable offense (fraud, conflict of interest, perjury, ordering illegal acts) that Rumsfeld can be proven to have done. I'll change my mind. Until then, I will definitely think that immediately that whoever is offering such advice that Rumsfeld resign is themselves discredited.
If it's a case of optics, then courtmartial every officer in the chain of command right up to and including the first general officer in the chain. That general officer was appointed and empowered by the Senate and is responsible for all operations in his command. The buck should stop there since he is the person that bears ultimate responsibility for inspecting and controlling those facilities.
Rumsfeld.... Well... It's the Economist. Jane works for the Economist.
The real factor is "You don't change horses in the middle of the stream!"
And at Waco, Janet was in touch with the people on the ground. That makes her bound by the result.
In Iraq, there are about 120,000 troops and Rumsfeld is only in touch with the leadership, not the people running the prisons. No real personal connection with him in that.
Only if you also think that every cabinet official should be fired any time someone in that department makes a major screw-up. You must call for Tenet's and Ascroft's head over 9/11, for example, since the CIA and FBI screwed the pooch there. If we have another Three Mile Island-type nuclear incident, you'll need to demand the resignation of Spencer Abraham.
Don't get me wrong. I see the advantage of ceremonial firings to get people's attention. But, it's needs to be done consistently to be effective and avoid the appearance of partisanship or a case of "guilty due to the severity of the crime." Or so it seems to me.
One more point. Rumsfeld is in charge of more than 350,000+ employees. 135,000 of which are in Iraq. That is more employees than most of the governors have to be "responsible" for. I work for the state of CA. I don't even think the governor of CA has 350,000+ employees. I think it's 220,000.
The economist, Jane and others who are calling for Rumsfeld's resignation really need to have a sense of perspective, point to a fire-able offense, and really make a coherent argument as to why someone who is the RIGHT person for the job should be made to be held accountable instead of the actual people who knew or did the acts being held accountable.
In my earlier comparison, should Arnold be held accountable (if he didn't know about it or order it) if a teacher or even couple teachers who were half way around the world on a field trip to Japan mistreated and abused students?
That is ridiculous.
You might want to remove your post Jane and change your mind quickly..... Others will question your perspective and judgment.
Jane Galt wrote:
But it doesn't matter. Trent Lott could no longer be an effective leader either of his senate, or his party, once those remarks were public. He was fatally compromised, and he needed to go.
Except of course Trent Lott had to resign from the Majority Leadership position over his own comments and his own actions not those of someone who might or might not be accountable to him through several layers of the chain of command.
Yay! Fire the bastar; its isn't like he ordered a cover-up and let the perps go unpunished or anything like that!
Harry wrote:
Rumsfeld.... Well... It's the Economist. Jane works for the Economist.
Well in fairness to Jane, it isn’t much of a secret that she works for the Economist (although she probably should have included some sort of disclaimer in her post to be on the safe side). However as of late the Economist’s editorials have been reading more like “advice to Republicans from your friends the Democrats,” so I take these “suggestions” with a fifty pound bag of Morton System Saver.
The argument that the Economist makes is simply “we need to fire someone and since we disapprove of Rumsfeld for other reasons, even though this a pretty weak reason to get rid of him, we’ll use it as an excuse and say that we are doing it for some larger purpose.”
It’s rubbish of course and transparently opportunistic on their part.
Also, Jane, just what sort of PR boat do you think we're in, now, that we weren't in before?
You mention that this is "putting the US in the same PR boat with the worst sort of third-world dictatorships." Would that that were the case.
The worst sort of third-world dictatorships get much better press in most of the world than we could ever hope for. Hell, even in much of the U.S. press, for that matter.
I should think going through an honest, strict, above-board investigation and courts-martial would show the world that we are more concerned with true justice than we are ceremony and appearances.
To put it in third-world dictatorship terms, a dictator faced with an embarrasing torture situation come to light could call in a convenient toady and put a bullet in his brain (the third-world equivalent of firing) and claim the problem was solved, while leaving the torture chamber running night and day. Would that really be justice? Would it really be effective? Would it accomplish anything at all?
The linked article closes with, "Better still if he and Mr Rumsfeld were now to demonstrate one of the true American values: that senior people take responsibility." I have a better American value that I'd like to see demonstrated: The rule of law.
Jane,
A few disorganized thoughts on this. I remember back to the Gulf War when there was a lot of emphasis on the troops being guests of the Saudi kingdom and that the political and military leadership was tuned the sensitivities of the Saudis and Arabs in general. We took great pains to invite ourselves in to fix a problem and not overstep once we fixed it. This time, as with Afghanistan, the overriding point has been to tell the Arab nations that 9/11 was totally unacceptable and the consequences as severe as possible. After 9/11, most Americans would have been comforted in knowing that the Al Queda and Taliban thugs were being humiliated -- perhaps within the letter of the Geneva Convention, but definitely beyond the spirit.
I'm actually pretty torn on this. It's not torture, it's not a Nazi death camp. Yet it's more degrading and humiliating than blasting rock music at a Vatican mission protecting Noriega. War critics are blowing this out of proportion and using it as an argument against the war. It looks amateurish and it was all perpetrated by very young people who have no idea of the ramifications. But I hope it was policy. The Arab thugs who are still fighting us have no concept of shame. We've found it, although we've had to dig pretty deep. I doubt it was policy, but if someone thought "hey, how about a female soldier laughing at how small this Arab guy's manhood is?"... it's too sick to be brilliant, but I'd bet propaganda-wise, it's a powerful message about the relative strength of America. Unfortunately, it probably also reinforces the Arab world's view of us as godless, arrogant occupiers running around with cell phones and digital cameras.
Again, I am torn. I think the Arab world has been so blinded by the combination of oil and religious fanaticism that it didn't fear us. That in turn, gives rise to extreme elements like Al Queda that would attack us. So I want a large dose of fear thrown down. But I'd also like these people to (long term) get with the program like Eastern Europe, India, Southeast Asia, China, etc. because it will make all of our lives better.
Probably good to have Rumsfeld and down the chain of command on the hot seat so that they refine their tactics a bit, probably bad to make heads roll.
Yes. My analogy fits. The Trent Lott analogy doesn't. Trent Lott stepped down of a leadership position but not the Senate position over remarks that he made and not others.
Jane wrote:
Don Rumsfeld's continuing presence at the pentagon is now more of a liability than an asset.
My question:
Why is his continuing presence a liability? What did Don Rumsfeld do, cover up, know about and not act on?
The continuing presence that should be questioned are the commander on the fields presence and the Generals who kept this OLD investigation as hidden as possible.
I would question any Senator or Representative who didn't have good perspective (called for Rumsfeld to resign). That Senator or Representative shouldn't be able to have a continued presence. That Senator and Representative hurts our mission and hurts America.
I too think that firing Rumsfield is not called for and would be counterproductive. I don't see how this affects his effectiveness. I also don't think the jury is in as to the "real" effect this is having in Iraq--early reports in the blogosphere indicate that we are taking this much more seriously than the average Iraqi is.
Aside from all that, I have a concern with witchhunts in general, and that is what this looks like to me. I read the complete investigation report on MSNBC and I looked at the photos. BG Janis Karpinski (hte MP brigage commander) has had her military career effectively terminated, but not for these incidents per se, but rather for not leading properly and ensuring that her personnel were properly trained. Ditto for the two commanders at the prison itself, the MP Battalion commander and the MI (military intelligence) commander. Ditto for the MP chain of command all the way down to the perps, who are being court-martialed. What bothers me is that the MI chain of command is not being attacked in the same way, and it is evident upon reading the report that the problem stemmed from the intel guys who told the MP guys (and gals) to soften these special prisoners up as pre-interrogation tactics. Note that there are no allegations that the abuse of prisoners was widespread within that prison camp or existing at any other prison camp.
And personally, I don't know just what is "permitted" during interrogations and what isn't. (The intel folks have always been different, and it's generally impossible to verify if what they say is true or not.) I've seen a "full" interrogation done in training, and it is different only in kind and not degree from what I saw in the photos. Imagine a person kneeling upright with a short 2x4 laid across the backs of the knees. The 2x4 is tied in place. The person's hands are tied behind his back to the 2x4. Then the person is made to get on his feet. Ouch. I'm sure I have some of the details wrong because I only saw it briefly, but you get the general idea. This technique is taught in interrogation schools. In the case I saw, it was a Marine Interrogator-Translator Team interrogating an Army Special Forces A-team member during a joint training exercise.
So if this what I just described is legitimate interrogation, exactly where is the line drawn between legitimate and illegitimate techniques? And why on earth are some lower ranking Army Reserve MP's supposed to know where that line is if the Army Regular intel types are telling them to soften these particular prisoners up before interrogation? (And keep in mind that the photos were supposedly taken to be used in the interrogation and not as trophy photos.)
Enough for now. Gotta run.
Look what I just found in red on Drudge:
An Iraqi prisoner is too shamed to stay in Iraq.
I would be comforted in knowing this was "psy-ops" getting a little out of hand. It's definitely not Rodney King.
Jane, I disagree; I just heard that Rep. Charles Rangel wants Rumsfeld to resign, so it can't be the right thing to do.
That aside, Rumsfeld did not commit these abuses, and, based on the preliminary information so far known, his department was involved in investigating and punishing the wrong doers before the pictures became publicly known. We can't expect him to arrest his troops for what they will do next Thursday, only that he administer punishment if they get out of line. Seems to me that he is doling out punishment. Let's leave the guy alone to fight this war!
This is the the-dog-ate-my-homework administration.
Nobody is ever responsible for anything.
Rumsfeld will stay.
GT,
What should've someone been responsible for but not held responsible for in this administration?
Be truthful now....
Should Mr. Rumsfeld resign?
Maybe. It's hard to tell exactly what went wrong from out here, outside the Pentagon, and thousands of miles from Iraq.
Here's a question to try to figure it out: Would I have done any better? Once again, I don't have enough information, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. So unless I change my mind on that answer, I won't call for his resignation.
I also don't think the "iconic act" argument put forth by the Economist is good enough.
Militant Islam may appreciate "iconic" gestures, but that's the kind of mentality we're trying to fight. If we uphold the rule of law by trying our soldiers in court, then that's a powerful message to Iraq and the world.
And if we uphold the principle of political accountability by having Pres. Bush admit to war crimes on his watch, and making him submit to a constitutionally-mandated election five months later, then that's the most powerful message we could send.
On the other hand, a pre-mature resignation from Mr. Rumsfeld would send a very different kind of message: Bold, effective people who stir things up make for very convenient targets when the boss is looking for a scapegoat, so make sure you know how to cover your a--.
Here's a question for Megan: out of the whole chain of command, from National Guard prison guard to Commander-in-Chief, why should the ax fall on Mr. Rumsfeld's neck and not somewhere else along the way (for example, Mr. Rumsfeld's top assistant, or Mr. Rumsfeld's own boss, Pres. Bush)?
Matthew Goggins wrote:
Here's a question for Megan: out of the whole chain of command, from National Guard prison guard to Commander-in-Chief, why should the ax fall on Mr. Rumsfeld's neck and not somewhere else along the way (for example, Mr. Rumsfeld's top assistant, or Mr. Rumsfeld's own boss, Pres. Bush)?
Because Secretary Rumsfeld is already disliked by the people calling for his resignation for reasons which have nothing to do with the crimes allegedly committed in the Iraqi prison. This is simply a convenient tool for them to try to remove him.
Because Caesar's wife must be above reproach. It is not enough that we investigate and punish the people in the photographs; if we want a shot at winning hearts and minds, we need to prove to others, and ourselves, that such acts are intolerable. And that means not just court-martialing an E-6, but pushing the responsibility up the chain of command to those whose organisational or planning mistakes allowed this to happen.
Clenis,
It doesn't pursuade anyone when you call people names.
It would be more useful for "our side" to not engage in childish tactics.
It's actually hurtful for our side if we don't rise to the occasion and work on a message of pursuasion.
I was converted away from liberalism in 1991 for that reason. I was presented with contrary evidence which gave me an initial shock. Then I went to the library 3 times a week for a whole year to read up on a host of issues.
Please don't damage the gains we have made in slowing this country's pace towards liberalism. We haven't "started" moving this country to the center yet but we can and will.
Jane,
You still haven't told us what offense Rumsfeld has committed.
Has he:
1) Committed fraud
2) Had Conflict of Interest
3) Made illegal orders
4) Committed purjury
5) Been negligent
Why should Arnold resign because a few teachers on a field trip half way around the world to Japan mistreated students?
The teachers and even the investigator of the teachers (if they tried to cover up the incidents) should be held accountable.
Megan: What organizational or planning mistakes did Mr. Rumsfeld commit?
Read today's Washington Post editorial entitled "Rumsfeld's Responsibility."
In it, the Post reviews all of Rumsfeld's actions over the past three years and notes that Rumsfeld articulated a doctrine that swept aside traditional Geneva protections for POWs.
While Rumsfeld may not have specifically ordered that prisoners be abused, he nonetheless set a policy which, in turn, created a culture that tolerated, or perhaps even encouraged, this abuse. If the abuse is linked to these policies, then Rumsfeld should be held accountable, either via a demand for his resignation or by way of a public rebuke by the president.
--|PW|--
Interesting: as someone who firmly believes that the entire present complement of the Executive Branch, from George Walker Bush on down, ought to be tossed out on their behinds absolutely as soon as constitutionally possible, I find I have to disagree with you, Jane on this one.
Giving Rummy the boot is, IMO, a perfectly good end in and of itself: but demanding his resignation over the Abu Ghraib scandals seems to beg the point a bit. Yes, there is the "chain of responsibility" and all that, and the awful way the abuses managed to escape official notice (still less censure or reform) for so long... but your posters do have a point. The US Secretary of Defense oversees a vast organization, and it is ridiculous to expect that ANY SecDef can keep a handle on every single Pentagon department or military unit.
That said, however, if it could be proven conclusively that Rumsfeld either knew about the Abu Ghraib abuses beforehand, or covered up such knowledge (the notion that he was directly "responsible" for the abuse is ludicrous): well, that's a different ballgame.
Sadly, given the Bush Adminstration's past record on rationalizing and/or stonewalling any inquiry into their actions (especially about Iraq), I wouldn't look to Rummy's upcoming congressional testimont to very enlightening.
\
Pennywit,
That's the problem. Bush ordered the policy that the Washington Post doesn't describe very well. If Rumsfeld was carrying out Bush's orders why should Rumsfeld be held accountable not Bush.
This is a witchhunt in it's finest. Nobody has yet to say what Rumsfeld did that covered up, or that he ordered or knew what was going on.
.....And let me just say for all you folks out there. Please get a sense of perspective. There is text out there about what abuses there were. None of it was "torture" or "physical harm". In all brances of the military there is hazing. In the Navy (which I was in) there are these huge hazing ceremonies whenever a ship crosses the equator. People who haven't ever crossed the equator before have eggs thrown at them while they are in shackles, they are made to eat awful things, kneel shackled to each other while people smear old food and stuff on them etc. etc.
The media is quite able to stir up a controversy with perfect timing and many of you folks including you Jane now, will fall for it at one time or another. While the actions of those who committed the actions are wrong. And those who committed the actions should be punished, and those who covered up investigations should be punished... the rest of you who fall for the THURSDAY BEFORE THE TUESDAY ELECTION type stories have got to get out there and get some perspective.
Again. Should Arnold be made to resign if teachers in his state of 220,000 employees mistreat students? No.
...We're also skipping the detail that the dirty business was done by irregulars, and their irregular commanders. (I'm fuzzy at the moment whether they're USAR, NatGuard, or a combination of both.)
I'll wait for someone with both reserve and regular force experience to speak up on the full implications of this, as I've never served but have spent far more than my fair share of time around prior service folks.
if we want a shot at winning hearts and minds
Stop right there. The chances of the administration winning the hearts and minds of anyone who hates them -- from the "Arab street" to CNN -- is exactly zero. If Bush tearfully apologized and then committed hari-kari live on camera, commentators would complain his blood would damage the ecosystem on the White House lawn. Trying to impress these people is a waste of time.
*sigh* Megan's drift to the left continues -- a development almost as depressing as the photos themselves...
On the Arnold hypo: No, if only the conditions that you state in your hypo are true. But let's suppose that the following happen:
1. Arnold decides that students have been getting out of hand in school. He decides that California schools should reinstitute corporal punishment.
2. Arnold signs an executive order that authorizes corporal punishment. The California legislature passes a bill that prevents California state courts from hearing appeals from students who believe they are punished unfairly.
3. In one particularly troublesome school district, the teachers use slightly harsher corporal punishment than normal. Arnold praises this district because it has reduced gang activity and now runs schools that are more disciplined.
4. Another school district decides that whacking children's bottoms isn't enough because a math teacher complains that his students are too rowdy. Tougher corporal punishment is implemented.
5. Arnold praises this school district as a "model of discipline" and states that "students who step out of line will find that there is stern discipline waiting for them."
6. Scandal! It turns out that teachers have started to physically beat the students.
The question: Doesn't Arnold hold some culpability here?
can't help but agree with jay c to an extent. and with pennywit and pat in ca: you have to remove rumsfield on the basis of ACTUAL INCOMETENCY. not because he is a SYMBOL of what has gone wrong. you remove him as a symbol, nothing gets done to make things better. we still have a culture that makes this torture/abuse an acceptable means of gaining information. the errors of judgement in the bigger picture still get made. and that won't change as a consequence of rummy's removal.
but, if you remove him because of imcompetency (incorrect number of troops, misjudging the resistance and feeding it, not acting on the reports of sbuse more forcefully when they first emerged, etc), one has a chance to say to people: "ship up, now!" but how likely is that? one opens a BIG can of worms. we have to accept that mistakes have been made, if we follow that path. i don't think the administration will do that though--either because they believe they haven't made any mistakes, or because they feel that such an admission will be devastating to reelection chances.
firing rumsfield, without the acknowledgement of mistakes, and some heavy mea culpas will not change things in iraq. it will be seen as arse-covering. that was the point of tom friedman's article this morning. in that, i agree with him. (but why he was so confident that we had the intellectual dexterity and flexibility to do good in iraq in the first place, is--in hindsight?--open to question, and still is).
Pennywit, your analogy doesn't apply because I can't see what Rumsfeld actions you are equating hypothetical Arnold actions to.
Here is a better one.
Arnold is governor of a state of 250,000 state employees. In the prison system, there are criminals who are being detained. One day there is a set of prison employees in Del Norte County (Far north county in the state) who mistreat prisoners. There are prison officials handling the problem (investigating). They don't make sure that Arnold sees the problem. Arnold didn't order the prisoners to act this way. Arnold didn't find out about the problem or investigation until he saw it on CBS.
Should Arnold have to resign. No.
Until someone can point to anything that Arnold did to that was wrong. And I'm not talking about the disagreement as to whether these people are following the Geneva conventions or not. Nobody is given the right to mistreat others period. Rumsfeld has stated that time and time again during Pentagon press briefings when speaking about Guantanamo. That just because prisoners don't fall under a certain category doesn't mean they are mistreated.
Jane Galt wrote:
Because Caesar's wife must be above reproach. It is not enough that we investigate and punish the people in the photographs; if we want a shot at winning hearts and minds, we need to prove to others, and ourselves, that such acts are intolerable. And that means not just court-martialing an E-6, but pushing the responsibility up the chain of command to those whose organisational or planning mistakes allowed this to happen.
Maybe not.
Monday was Machiavelli’s birthday and it reminded me of the expression that it is “better to be feared than loved” and it seems to me that this is particularly true in the Arab culture in which strength and power are held in higher regard than kindness.
We are certainly doing everything we can to win over the hearts and minds of the decent majority in that culture with benevolence (overthrowing their oppressor, rebuilding their infrastructure, providing humanitarian aid, getting other nations to forgive Iraq’s odious debt, helping them to set up a republican government, etc.) but it seems to me that we have not done enough to put the fear of G-d into the “hearts and minds” of those who oppose us.
My understanding is that the prisoners who were allegedly abused were there because they were thought to be complicit in trying to murder our and our allies’ soldiers and contractors (they may in fact be innocent but it could be argued that the Arab on the street might think that we thought they were guilty and this is about perceptions). The Yahoo story, that was provided earlier actually states that they were treated well until the decided to beat up a fellow detainee who was cooperating with the Americans. It could be that the alleged abuse would be seen as a form of retaliation for their actions, in which case it could actually work to our benefit to send out a message “help us and we will help you to create a better lives for yourselves but f*** with us or any who help us and we will not only hurt you, we will emasculate you in ways that will make you wish you were dead.”
I still agree that the alleged abuse should be denounced publicly, investigated, and those responsible should be punished (as is already happening). I question however whether this actually hurts or helps our mission as it is not inconsistent with a policy of “reward your friends and punish your enemies” which is ultimately what you have to do to "win the hearts and minds" of our friends while putting the fear of G-d in the "hearts and minds" of our enemies.
Bush is talking out of both sides of his mouth on Rumsfeld. In yesterday's interview for Arab TV, he expressed full confidence in his Secretary of Defense. Then he turned around an authorized what seemed to be an official leak saying that he was displeased by Rumsfeld.
Well, which is it?
This is an extraordinarily underhanded way for a CEO to deal with a subordinate. And the press, while playing up the story of the leak, has completely ignored this obvious flip-flop, this underhanded attempt to have it both ways.
Any real leader, any CEO, would have fired Rumsfeld. Doing so would send a clear signal about the values and standards that Bush will not compromise. Bush's dithering on Rumsfeld is an indication of weak values and standards and demonstrates poor leadership.
The issue is not Rumsfeld's "culpability." The issue is Bush's seriousness in sending a clear message to the chain of command about abuse. Keeping Rumsfeld says "business as usual." Getting rid of Rumsfeld says very clearly that things are going to change, no ifs ands or buts.
Honestly, I'm still grappling with the question myself. But I will refer you to today's Washington Post editorial page. They make a couple good points there, especially in Rumsfeld's derision of the Geneva rights accorded to prisoners.
Cas,
Your evidence of incompetence:
1) incorrect number of troops - Rumsfeld directed as many troops to the region as he was recommended by the generals and intelligence officers. Even today there is a disagreement by Generals if they need more troops or not. Cas, you are implying that you know more than the generals.
2) misjudging the resistance and feeding it - How does anyone understand this accusation? The media is more cupable for feeding the resistance.
3) not acting on the reports of sbuse [your mispelling not mine] more forcefully when they first emerged - You have evidence that Rumsfeld knew of this problem? He hasn't even seen the 53 or 54 page report that was leaked to the press before Rumsfeld saw it. Cas, you are showing your agenda here when you aren't so truthful.
Pennywit,
Please refer to my earlier comments on the Geneva Accords
Why fire Rumsfield?!
1) The prisoner mistreatment is simply not that big a deal.
2) Rumsfield is the best Defense secretary, perhaps ever.
3. We are in the midst of incredibly important work in Iraq. Firing him right now could really screw things up.
4. How about a little perspective here? We have made bigger and better strides in our defense and foreign policy than anyone could possibly have imagined only 2 years ago. Rumsfield has played the biggest role of anyone in the cabinet in bringing about these incredible successes.
We have removed Saddam at a cost in casualties that is so low it boggles the mind. Iraq and Afghanistan are free and the murder, torture and repression has been stopped. We have scared the hell out of every dictatorship on the planet, especially those who are supporting terror (Libya, Syria, NKorea, Iran). Democratic dissent is blossoming in the Mideast. We have made a major dent in the traffic of WMDs and have nuetralized programs in Libya while exposing the roles of players in Pakistan and around the world.
Most importantly, we have exposed the UN, France, Germany and Russia (along with journalists around the world like CNN) as the corrupt, backstabbing, terror-supporting slimeballs they are.
Finally, we have made incredible strides in attacking Islamic terrorism around the world. The terrorists are desperate to stop the progress in Iraq and are throwing everything they have at us. We are killing them in droves and developing intelligence on their support from Iran and Syria.
Does anyone think that the war on terror would be over by now?
It is time for some people to grow up and get real. We are in a nasty war with people who know no rules. They are terrorists! We are going to be slugging our way through this nasty business for years. Anyone who thinks that we aren't is a fool living a fantasy. And anyone who can't recognize our tremendous progress is too committed to partisan politics to be honest.
Forget the Arnold hypos. When the Senate forces Teddy Kennedy to resign over Chapaquidic, then let's talk about Rumsfeld. When the Democrats denounce the Reverend Al over Freddie's Fashion Mart, then let's talk about Rumsfeld. When the Dems dump Kerry over his admitted personal war crimes and his admitted failure to report others' war crimes, let's talk about Rumsfeld. I don't recall a sacrificial firing after Mi Lai, although I do recall a trial and conviction. Apparently the rules are different for Republican administrations than for Dems. Strange.
Ed,
You forgot:
There were over 50+ people convicted over fund-raising scandals in the Democrat party. Did the top guy in charge (Terry McCauliffe) get fired?
There were people killed in the Chinese Embassy in Bosnia. Who was relieved of their duties over people actually getting killed?
There was hate speech (n-word) uttered by Robert Byrd (D)who was a member of the KKK. Was he made to resign?
But to be fair Ed. I actually disagree with your premise. I do think that if there is something that someone did wrong that they should be held accountable. It does actually pursuade people to stop thinking "ah, they're all crooks". If one sees the two parties they see the Republicans holding a Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich accountable. But they can see the Democrats not holding Chris Dodd or Robert Byrd accountable.
We do need to hold ourselves up to a higher standard.
We do need to make sure that people who do wrong are held accountable.
Monday was Machiavelli’s birthday and it reminded me of the expression that it is “better to be feared than loved” and it seems to me that this is particularly true in the Arab culture in which strength and power are held in higher regard than kindness.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Don't any of the rest of you find it very interesting that these incidents have been made public in such a graphic way? Do you realize how frequently the photos are being seen by the Arab world? If you step out of the debate and just look at the number of times the images of humiliation of Arab men by American women are being shown worldwide you can't help but wonder if this was not intentional and, in the end, a good thing.
Raise the outrage, bring the "freedom fighters" to Iraq where we can find them and root them out. The price that is paid to make it appear authentic is the career of the military people who had to perform the acts.
As to Rumsfeld -- why would you get rid of one of the most effective political appointees of modern times? The volume of the clamor for his resignation is simply indicitive of the power and ability that the man wields.
Jane, you disappoint me.
Patrick in CA wrote:
There were people killed in the Chinese Embassy in Bosnia. Who was relieved of their duties over people actually getting killed?
Good point, during the Balkans conflict, the Clinton administration had a policy of flying our planes above a certain level in order to have “zero casualties.” As a result of this policy, we mistakenly bombed some refugee caravans and killed innocent people (which is certainly worse than the alleged abuse we’ve seen). I do not recall any resignations from those whose “organisational or planning mistakes allowed this to happen.”
Thor,
You said it better than I. Thanks.
It may well be time for Rumsfeld to go. But over Abu Ghraib? Give me a break.
Thorley and Ron... You've nailed it. All I can think about when I see the pictures of the female soldier parading around the naked prisoners is "didn't I see her in a porn flick"? Kidding, really. No, all I can think is that there is huge propaganda value to this.
In fact, the timing could not be better. We've endured a month of high casualties. I think it would be interesting to check back in a month and see whether these photos have maybe humiliated the thugs into not being as thuggish. Megan, please make a note to do that at the beginning of June.
Now, let's assume that it has that effect and (though we could never know) that's why they were "released" and why the timing of the release is as it is. Was this outrage worth keeping the peace and reducing the casualties?
This is news? I remember being ordered to report for my physical in downtown Chicago in preparation for being drafted to go to Viet Nam. There were a thousand of us, stark naked, and one by one they went down the line and said "bend over." Talk about humiliating! From the accounts I've read, this whole thing is no worse than some stupid fraternity initiations.
And, no, Rumsfeld should not resign. Remember the salient fact here is that the military uncovered this, stopped it, and was already in the process of prosecuting the culprits several months ago. It's against policy and was treated as such.
It's blown up now because the big-foot reporters finally caught wind of it even though there was the occasional bit in the news about this as far back as January.
Meanwhile, the die-hard Baathists and the other terrorists, who murder people on a whim, must be laughing themselves silly over the whole thing.
They're not only laughing, they are full of glee and have figured out (just like the Democrat party) that they have a big ally - The Press.
Thorley and Ron... You've nailed it. All I can think about when I see the pictures of the female soldier parading around the naked prisoners is "didn't I see her in a porn flick"?
Or a Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) campaign rally.
I think this suggestion fails a simple test - would it please our enemies?
I think that if Al Q and Osama would applaud you, you should reconsider your thinking.
There is a difference between being responsible, as Rumsfeld is, and being at fault, as the perpetrators and their direct chain of command are.
Rumsfeld is responsible for dealing with this. Until and unless he can be shown to be at fault in the original offenses or in dealing with the aftermath, his resignation is uncalled for and would be seriously counterproductive.
I'm very surprised you'd advocate Rumsfeld's removal. I simply can't think of a single justification for it.
Firing Rummy without some reason to think he was directly or indirectly involved would send the wrong message for another reason.
The Arab culture emphasizes group responsibility, guilt by association. (E.g., a woman's sexual indiscretions brings shame on the entire family.)
Our culture emphasizes individual responsibility. That includes people up the chain of command, but only to the extent that they have personally failed in some way (training, supervision, . . .). That's not to say guilt by association doesn't happen here, but we try to avoid it.
Group blame has brought the Arab world honor killings. Individual accountability (and accomplishment) has brought this country many benefits.
Of the many reforms needed in the Arab world, increased individual responsibility and the attendant self-determination are ones we should emphasize and model.
I think Jane is just very anxious about the state of Iraq right now and is reaching for the panic button. Fire Rumsfeld and you're reducing significantly our chances of winning the war on terror. You think firing him is going to win Arab hearts and minds? Isn't it really because you want feel less guilty, Jane?
I can't think of a man in any administration in the last 60 years that I would rather have doing what he's doing right now. He is a great man, doing a great job at a time when lesser men would have folded like a paper sack.
If Rumsfeld sanctioned the abuse in this prison, then yes, he should go. This is hardly the case. I don't believe there was any call for the secretary of defense to resign when the mylai massacre occured. During WWII, thousands of SS troops were subjected to horrible conditions at the end of the war, I dont remember anyone calling for the removal of Henry Stimson, or Eisenhower.
ah, but frank, those were nazis.....
Yes, they were. and who do you think these people are? the bushmen of the khalari? You think these prisoners are a stack of innocent kids picked up off the street? Get this into you heads, these people in our custody are every bit as dangerous and deranged as the SS troops of the past. Would any of you cry if himmer,goering or martin boorman were stacked into a pile and the female guard giving a thumbs up? hardly. (hell I'd pay good money for that shot. )
That being said, we have out standards. And this is wrong. Our people will be punished and an accounting will be had. Secretary Rumsfeld had already seen to this, when it became a "media" issue because it fit the big media template of horrible american atrocities that they expected. Try to remember that folks, theres been no cover up, Rumfeld has done exactly what hes supposed to do in this event.
This issue is not worth the heat thats been generated. Iraqis were not subjected to anymore abuse than the average prisoner within US civilian prisons. I would also like to say that while this activity is wrong in our eyes, it is by far the LEAST abusive when compared to any Islamic country and many in Europe.
The soldiers who did this should be subjected to a military court and removed from duty. But to wreck the countries ability to fight the war because of the acts of a few meatheads, is simply self distructive.
I will cry more for the poor Iraqi insurgents when they begin treating our hostages with respect and dignity.
For those of us calling for the utter distruction of falluja just last week, I just have to ask, is getting you panties pulled off really worse than getting blasted to bits by an orbiting AC-130?
Those of you crying the loudest for Rumfeld have to explain to me where were your cries when contractors corpses were being hanged from bridges. Where were your cries of horror over the genocidal deaths of thousands - THOUSANDS - of kurds.
Somebody gets their panties pulled off and you cry like we are stringing up partisans with piano wire from telephone poles.
This is war. Try and remember that. We have alternatives to capturing prisoners, your heartfelt concrn mike ensure that fewer people are taken prisoner since weve set the standrard of ensuring that all those captured are treated as if they need a laywer and a bondsman before we can talk to them.
And go watch "world at war" DVDs so you can remember what a war looks like. You folks seem to think we dont have an Army in the process of occupying a country, but a big SWAT team doing a drug bust in an inner city project.
Frank,
To add to your comments..
I am one who does think that that for every one of the "insurgents" who shoots at our guys in Fallujah we needed to triangulate where the shot came from and drop a 2,000 pounder.
...I guess if we actually did do that, Rumsfeld should resign? Yuck.. We'd never win a war. I think we are fighting too surgically as it is. These people need to know that if their brother or father is firing at us, they should turn them in (or plead with them to stop) or a 2,000 pounder is coming to their vicinity.
Interesting, by my count we have twenty in favor of keeping Rumsfeld on, three (possibly) in favor of his removal over this incident, and four (possibly) in favor of removing him but for other reasons.
Yet no one has said anything in support of the arguments made by the Economist or Jane over why this incident supposedly warrants his removal.
"Because Caesar's wife must be above reproach. It is not enough that we investigate and punish the people in the photographs; if we want a shot at winning hearts and minds, we need to prove to others, and ourselves, that such acts are intolerable."
Who are you, and what have you done with Megan?
Btw, we WANT to humiliate, unsettle, disorient, or otherwise make verrrry nervous this small group of non-POWs. They are (or are suspected of being) illegal combatants responsible for killing Americans.
The "good co-bad cop" routine is designed to soften them up, so, when they are interrogated, one or two of them might blurt out some bit of info we might use to prevent more murders. Too bad we didn't do it to Moussaoui in August 2001.
Jane, read the official report. Several salient points:
1. Other prisons are not having these problems.
2. The report commends an auxiliary unit at Abu Ghraib for their lawful and honorable conduct in the face of incompetent command, poor morale, and difficult conditions. It also commends the service member who got the ball rolling on cleaning up the prison.
3. The ill-treatment inflamed the prisoners to the point of riot. But, firstly, the guards were severly understaffed and ill equipped to deal with a riot. Secondly, the commander severly misallocated her paltry manpower, underallocating guards to a large group of prisoners whilst overallocating guards to a tiny group of prisoners. Thirdly, the guards carried a haphazard mix of lethal and less-than-lethal rounds for their firearms, resulting in both unnecessary killings and unsuccessful lethal defense. I read between the lines that they nearly lost control of the prison.
4. The guards allowed untrustworthy natives access to the prisoners.
5. During questioning, the prison commander couldn't understand why anybody thought the poor results at the prison might be her responsibility.
These are the actions of jackasses in need of adult supervision, not of torturers with a plan.
One might theorize that the brass is making these bastards take the fall, to provide plausible deniability for said brass and their Evil Neoncon Policies. That seems impractical to me. Getting dozens of people, from enlisted men to a Major General, to keep a story straight, along with thousands of Iraqis, is simply not possible. The story would fall apart and the links to Herr Rumsfeld would show through. Given the number of people involved, there is no way to reward them sufficiently for their pariah-hood.
If you want Rumsfeld and co. removed, fine. They openly espouse many policies. Their tax-and-spend programs offend classical conservatives like me. Their faith-based crapola and classically-Fascist no-bid contracting offend classical liberals. Nearly everyone but the Imperialists can find something to hate. There are more than adequate substantive reasons to remove them in their own press releases. Squinting to see conspiracies under every rock does not serve your cause.
You might want to remove your post Jane and change your mind quickly..... Others will question your perspective and judgment.
Forgive my bluntness, but that formulation of "argument" sounds stupid when the ocassional liberal-leaning poster uses it, and it sounds equally stupid when a conservative-leaning poster uses it. I would like to put in a request that it not be used again.
As for questioning Jane's perspective and judgment...yes, that's exactly what I'm going to do, but that's a risk she took when she registered janegalt.net, not some new revelation as a result of a post whose contents upset you.
And as for why I wish to question her judgement...in short, she has concurred with something that is, IMO, one of the sloppiest pieces of editorial writing I have ever read.
Right from the start vague assertions about "perception" are made, but any weight they might have is immediately lightened by noting what Bush's response has been. Beyond that they are never justified by the cited evidence -- e.g. a comparison of this as potentially becoming a defamer akin to the Vietnam photo of a nude girl fleeing a napalm attack? Really now, what a way to defame that poor girl's tribulation. THAT was a civilian girl fleeing a napalm attack; THIS is detained enemies being humiliated. Somewhat different, and the Economist ought to be capable of discerning the difference. The uncited evidence -- that we seem to be taking the implications of this more seriously than the Iraqis themselves, as someone else already noted -- doesn't work in the editorial writer's favor, either.
Then there were attempts to make comparison between this, Guantanamo Bay, and everyone's favorite unhealed wound, the ICC, as demonstrating something like an unchecked culuture of extra-legal behavior. That's just stupid. Whatever arguments were "used" by critics of the ICC, there is still a fundamental problem of its structure violating US constitutionality, so that talking point is mute. As for Guantanamo, I'm more impressed by Volokh's demonstration that it seems to be constitutional and consistent with previous POW detainments, than I am with an Economist writer's ability to spin left. As for Abu Ghraib, appropriate legal responses are being dispensed as we speak, so what's left to argue?
By the time one gets past all the non-sequitur and hand-waving, we reach the third section of the editorial, where there is basically a tacit admission that the writer doesn't like Rumsfield's post-war handling of Iraq, and wants him to go -- and this provides the opportunity to demand it openly.
Color me unimpressed. The writer's motivation seems so transparent I was half expecting to discover birds dashing themselves against it.
Finally Jane, I have not seen you introduce any compelling response to the points other posters keep hammering on -- such as (1) that Rumsfield is not directly accountable for either the prisoner abuse itself or any subsequent cover-up, (2) that the abuse was apparently an isolated incident and is being appropriately handled through normal channels, and (3) that his resignation would prove precisely nothing -- it would not satisfy the Anti-Shrub crowd (who want no war, no occupation, and no Republicans); nor, I think, would it mean anything to supporters of the coalition efforts, who will hold that the abuse scandal as anomalous unless new evidence shows otherwise.
If Rumsfield had personally issued a memo enabling the abuse; or had been aware of it and tried to cover it up; or was running such a small organization that his ignorance was evidence of incompetence; or was overseeing a large organization so plauged by such scandals that his leadership was called into question -- THEN, yes, I grant that his resignation is imperative.
But failing something like that, what are you actually requesting? A cermonial pillorying to satisfy the whims of a coworker?
WOW. THIS IS FUNNY! A 365-50 Vote today on a resolution condemning the abuses of Iraqi prisoners. GUESS WHO THE 50 were? Liberals..
Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich...
Here is the story from Yahoo News
Yes. If you read the entire resolution it commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces. What in the world could be wrong with doing that?
Anonymous,
Hey, I was just forwarning her. I don't mind the content and the debate. I love debate. She didn't take my advice and guess what....
I'm beginning to think she is pulling a trick on us. I'm new to her blog but past blogs by her don't seem to indicate that she leans this way.
Patrick in CA
- just to back that up, it was regular accepted practice in WWII Europe at the end of the war, whenever our troops took sniper fire from a town, for our army to withdrawl and to simply hammer the town with artillery until the sniping stopped, with little or no concern for the innocent women and children. And don't get me started talking about what we did to Dresden.
We dont have to be nice. Our troops are getting killed because we wish to be humane, not because the enemy is effective. We have the tools and history shows we have the will to simply kill in en masse, rather than taking the time to simply go after just those who are our enemy.
There are those of us that remember in the days just after September 11th , many of those same people crying about the current "underwear incident" were opening calling for the nuclear distruction of many large cities in the middle east. There are even people today calling for it in falluja.
Who is it that kept it from happening on Sept 12th and who is it directing actions in falluja to keep it from becoming 'Carthage: Version 2.0"?
Rumsfeld.
Think what his day must be like. Each of us wakes up every morning the same way. We say that quiet little prayer "please dont let me turn on the tv and see another september 11th"
He deals with it as well ,only its not abstract, its real. There are hundreds of things that cross his desk every day that would horrify each of us if we knew. Can anyone of us say that if we knew what he knew that we wouldn't go stark raving insane with fear?
The man has my support. He has it for the same reason the lincoln supported Grant. ("He fights").
When they name an Aircraft Carrier after him, our enemies will go on to fear his name when they realize the USS Rumsfeld is sitting just off shore.
I will not let a case of animal house style prisoner abuse by morons take away our best chance of staying alive. Instead of bitching and whining about mean old mr rumsfeld, give the man your prayers and hope he finds the strength to keep on fighting for us.
Frank Martin,
Well put.
Jane Galt,
It's not too late to retract your post or at least try to come up with a better argument.
> for our army to withdrawl
The commanders are mostly southern, I suppose?
Oh, for heaven's sake - here is an excerpt from the Reuters story about the House vote:
"President Bush's fellow Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives joined Democrats on Thursday in deploring the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.
But with passions and partisanship rising, they rejected Democratic calls for congressional investigations into the mushrooming scandal that has eroded American credibility and renewed questions about the Iraq war.
On a vote of 365-50, the Republican-led House approved a resolution that "deplores and condemns the abuse of persons in United States' custody in Iraq."
While foes of the resolution deplored the mistreatment of inmates, they said the measure should have also affirmed the need for bipartisan congressional investigations."
Yes, the 50 Libs wanted the resolution to include a call for Congressional hearings. Continuing:
"But with the mistreatment of inmates already the object of military investigations, Republicans said no to congressional probes. They also noted it would be the object of hearings by existing House panels, including one on Friday with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
Whatever. Reuters link here:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5065672&pageNumber=1
Now, I agree with Jane G that Rumsfeld ought to go. I think that the President's expression of support today means that he won't embarrass Rumsfeld by firing him ASAP, but that Rumsfeld will be allowed to walk out under his own power, if it comes to that. And whether it comes to that will be decided in large part by John McCain, who will be one of the Senators questioning him tomorrow.
Why sack him? He should have told Bush (and Congress, but I'm in a 'screw them' mood) about the photos immediately. His policies may well have led to this debacle; his failure to pursue it with the sort of energy that would include tipping the President is not acceptable.
My other reason to sack him is based on my (free) advice to underlings - if you are going to screw up, at least surprise me. There really is no good excuse for failing in a dull and predictable fashion.
We had problems with the prison situation in Afghanistan; Gitmo has been in the news for years; it had to have ocurred to Rumsfeld that the prisons in Iraq had the potential to become a PR disaster. Of all the damn things we might have internationalized, why not that? Maybe get a few French prison guards, bring in the Red Cross regularly, and make damn sure that this never becomes a problem.
The only surprise is that we are surprised.
OK, Gregory Djerejian wants Rumsfeld out too.
http://www.belgraviadispatch.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_belgraviadispatch_archive.html#108376541802248768
Kirk Parker -
Man, do know how hard it is to type when your keyboard is covered with rant-ejected spittle? it makes the damn keyboard slick as anything.
besides, I kinda like "Withdrawl". It looks natural.....
I just heard that Rep. Charles Rangel wants Rumsfeld to resign, so it can't be the right thing to do
I can't beat that as a criterion for deciding what is right: find out what the most idiotic person you can possibly think of advocates and then do the opposite.
Seriously, I could see asking for the resignation of the commanding general as a token sacrifice. That's a gesture that the Arab world would understand. And perhaps it is quixotic, but it makes some sort of sense because you can make the argument that she should have known what was going on in her own command.
The scope of what Rummy is expected to supervise is so incredibly vast that nothing is served by calling for his head. Except to damage our interests. If that's what you want to accomplish, then I suppose it's a great idea. And I'm not a huge Rumsfeld fan, by the way.
hi pat in ca
"Cas, you are showing your agenda here when you aren't so truthful."
please. i will apologise for some rushed typing and the spelling errors.
"1) incorrect number of troops - Rumsfeld directed as many troops to the region as he was recommended by the generals and intelligence officers. Even today there is a disagreement by Generals if they need more troops or not. Cas, you are implying that you know more than the generals."
no, i don't more than the generals. i wonder what one does when one sees a fellow officer retire "early" because he had the temerity to suggest that we needed a lot more troops. it has been very well established that rums was keen to fight his war with the min number of troops, both before the fall of saddam and after. it is also clear that plenty of the armed forces chiefs also thought we were light. the fact is that currently more troops (+30,000) are in the process of being sent...
"2) misjudging the resistance and feeding it - How does anyone understand this accusation? The media is more cupable for feeding the resistance."
i agree that media on both sides can inflame passions in this situation. but is that only the case? an example of how americans in iraq make things worse: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F04%2F11%2Fwtact11.xml, which details british disquiet at american attitudes to iraqis. to whit:
"Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it's awful"
if this is widespread (which does not have to include everybody, just a significant number of our troops), and i see no reason to think it isn't, than that makes things worse.
"3) not acting on the reports of sbuse [your mispelling not mine] more forcefully when they first emerged - You have evidence that Rumsfeld knew of this problem?"
that is the problem. this issue has been festering since last year, burst out earlier in the year, with evidence of the photos, then tugala wrote his report. when was the report submitted? it was not last week... rumsfield could have cut across the chain of command (he is technically in charge, isn't he?) and asked for the report-stat. he didn't. when recently asked, rumsfield had not yet read the whole report. sorry, that doesn't cut it for such an explosive issue which has damaged our standing globally, and in iraq. not informing the president of the firestorm about to descend on him--that is a major mistake from an underling.
The thing that I haven't heard anyone talk about is what if the ICC tries to assert jurisdiction.
Cas,
Because you disagree with someone then... you are saying he is incompetent. On all 3 examples you Cas agree with others. Rumsfeld agrees with others than you.
#1) Rumsfeld was following recommendations from a majority of generals. Not the one who you talk about. So.... Cas disagrees.That makes Rumsfeld incompetent.
#2) Many disagree with how proportionate our responses are. Who cares what the British think when we have 700 dead. I and others have been calling for MORE DISproportionate action. So.... Cas disagrees.That makes Rumsfeld incompetent.
#3) Rumsfeld trusted that the people in the chain below him were taking appropriate action. So... Cas disagrees. That makes Rumsfeld incompetent.
With respect to #3)....Let me expand....
When I was in the Navy in 1989 there was a guy who was drunk who was in the Van that I was driving. I didn't know he was drunk. Then for some reason he socked a guy in the nose. When I stopped the Van the guy got out, and he socked some other guy in the mouth. That guy had to get his jaw wired shut for a month. The perpertrator was handled by the command. He was sent to the court martialled and sent to the Brig.
There are perpertrators every week in the military. They are taken care of at the command level.
Then people like Cas come along and think they know better. They disagree with how it was being handled. People in Iraq were already being court-martialled. People were already being investigated and held responsible.
Now... People like Cas want to assert that they know more. That they are more competent. And that Rumsfeld should step down when Rumsfeld is a good and decent man doing a very tough job.
Cas. Please. And take a typing class and spelling class. Otherwise you look incompetent. :)
Jane, The comparison with Janet Reno is way off base, The same people who are clamoring for Rumsfeld (a totaly capable and necessary federal official) couldn't care less about Reno's Malfeasance and ineptness in office. If Rumsfeld is forced to step down it will be a great loss to our nation and a great victory for our enemies.
hi pat at ca,
"And that Rumsfeld should step down when Rumsfeld is a good and decent man doing a very tough job."
and not very well. and that is why he should step down.
And I disagree.
Fortunately for all of us we don't get fired when someone who doesn't know how to do our jobs judges us.
You're all crazy. Jane shouldn't be calling for the resignation of Rummy. She should show some O's and call for a new president in November. The war in Iraq has been a pointless exercise in making America feel like we're doing something - it's military makework. Hope you all feel safer now, but maybe it would have been cheaper just to take a math class: we're a nation of 300 million spread over something like 3.5 mil. sq. miles. Absent an enemy with a lot of nukes and a good missle targeting system, you were never in any real danger to begin with.
I don't claim that Kerry is a great candidate, but anyone is better than this bumbling idiot. If the right side of the aisle has a suggestion, I'm probably game for that as well.
Some Don't call you Tim,
Kerry admitted to committing war crimes. That tape was played on Fox News today. It would be a heaping big mistake to replace a good man like Bush with a war criminal.
Ms. Galt,
I agree that something terrible happened on Don Rumsfeld's watch.
I agree that Don Rumsfeld was not directly culpable for what occurred.
I agree that the battle to win the hearts and minds of the "arab street" is an important goal.
I disagree with the notion that terminating Rumsfeld helps on the PR front. This is an instance where the hideous revelations are more damaging than the hideous acts. A symbolic termination, is, for starters, mere theater and it would be seen as such. Additionally, the lack of proportionality actually could heighten the perception that this was not "exceptional" but rather normative behavior by our soldiers. On balance, I would guess that this gesture not only would fail to achieve your aims but also would undermine them.
The argument that he has lost his effective ability to lead strikes me as a completely unsupported assertion. I'm not sure what constituency is incapable of understanding Rumsfeld's lack of complicity in the events. Aside from the individuals who believed that he should have been terminated prior, it's not clear to me that anyone doubts his ability as a leader. Many of the other posters have developed reasonable litmus tests for what actions would justify his termination. Your point of view appears to be that you think others are incapable of making a relatively simple calculus of his guilt and that Rumsfeld's standing with this completely unquantified, seeming unqualified, group is such that he has lost his efficacy as a leader.
I'd be hard pressed to push for his termination without being persuaded of his culpability for the actions at Abu Ghraib. Our efforts in the Middle East are important enough that unless you were willing to identify a more capable manager to replace him, your premise that the country is better off without him doesn't strike me as being persuasive.
(just like the Democrat party)
Posted by Patrick in CA
That's "Democratic party". Only yahoos say "Democrat party".
I don't know enough to have an opinion on whether Rumsfeld should resign, but could we end the cliche' that we are attempting to win hearts and minds, if that cliche is meant to mean that we hope to have the Arab, and wider Islamic world, like us? No matter what action we take now, or in the future, this region is going to have substantial hard feelings towards us, for a lot of complicated reasons. All that we can hope for is that the population at large is able to lend some form and amount of consent to their government, and at that time they will see it in their self interest to refrain from making war on us. Being feared will be more important than being liked. We should refrain from torture, and punish torturers, because of what engaging in torture does to us.
Anonymous,
That's "anony-mouse," actually. You don't know my name, but if you step on my tail, I produce lots of infernal squeaking.
Hey, I was just forwarning her. I don't mind the content and the debate. I love debate. She didn't take my advice and guess what....
I think you're lacking some perspective, personally. This is a weblog. I know no more about Ms. McArdle than what she has bothered to reveal here nor have I ever met her, or interacted with her in any other capacity; maybe she likes my literary contributions or maybe she lines her parakeet cage with them, but either way she wouldn't recognize me from the cable TV repairman even if she knew my given name. From what you have revealed so far, I understand you to be in loosely the same position.
That being the case, whatever your intentions were in making that comment...neither you nor I are a personal friend trying to quietly rebuke someone whom we fear is heading down a dark path. Since what she wrote is not structurally offensive, all we have here is a mere opinion on current events stated on one's personal webspace -- to wit, a weblog entry. And a casual forum in which to discover whether the opinion has merit.
Calls for "retraction" and "warnings" that one's credibility is at stake (or similar) have no context of acquaintanceship, and in lieu of any good intent lurking there, will be easily mistaken for what they appear to be: base arrogance on the part of a respondant who had his/her worldview fur rubbed the wrong direction.
Especially since many previous users of such language on this site have gone on to prove that the above was exactly their problem.
Pat:
Don't mock me; I am a great and powerful wiz...ah fuck it.
So Kerry claimed, when he was young and stupid, that he was a war criminal. He said some overwrought things at an overwrought time. He's addressed that matter badly since then. So what? I told you, I don't love him, but he's not Bush.
Hell, Bush wanted Kissinger to head the 9/11 committee. Whatever Kerry did in the war, he didn't put up numbers anything like the 500,000 bodies that Kissinger did in Cambodia. So, you know, I'm a little surprised that Republicans would care about any sort of war crimes where the total kills were under six digits.
(And lets not even get started on John Negroponte as Ambassador to Iraq - that's going to turn out great, just great).
Thanks for the WaPo link, Pennywit. Before I read thru the editorial, I thought the calls for Rummy to resign were ludicrous; now I just think they're mistaken, and over the top.
One aspect of the WOT that has bothered me has been the haphazard system we have for handling "enemy combatants" (or whatever we're calling them). I can understand Rumsfeld being happy with the current results and so making no move to develop an ethical and Constitutional process. So why hasn't Bush ordered him to do so? Where's Ashcroft when he should be at bat? (I know, I know, he's chasing porn purveyors in Peoria.)
IMO, the failure to develop a sensible incarceration policy is partly Rumsfeld's fault, and that failure contributed to the prison abuses. (BTW, I don't think they rise to the level of the WaPo's "horrific abuses", but they're certainly inappropriate, and have had bad PR repercussions.) That said, I think Rumsfeld is in a good position to make long overdue changes (or at least come up with proper policies), and I expect he will.
No one has mentioned the problem about who should replace Rumsfeld. The Economist says "it would be unwise to replace him simply with one of his own team, such as Paul Wolfowitz." Riiight, we need to bring in someone without experience who will handle things completely differently! If we're really firing Rumsfeld over the prison abuses, the proper replacement would be someone with the same policies except those relating to prisoners. I have no clue who that might be.
A few other comments:
I think mentioning Reno is a good idea, Megan. What she should have said was, "I am responsible, and I am going to make the following changes to see that we never blow up a cult/kidnap a little boy/whatever again." The Rumsfeld parallel is obvious.
The Economist article says, "The scandal is widening, with more allegations coming to light." Um, guys, more allegations will continue to "come to light" as long as they garner headlines. Since when is the size of a scandal measured by the number of allegations? Let's leaven the allegations with some actual facts, eh?
Reuters says "...the mushrooming scandal that has eroded American credibility and renewed questions about the Iraq war." Oh, had the questions about the war died down, briefly? Hadn't noticed, myself.
Jane I think you should pull your blog from the net - it's time for you to pack it in. Resign.
Why? Well some of the commentors here are quite offensive, naturally this means you are offensive and therefore I hold you responsible.
Jane, my goodness dear....don't be such a puppet.
;-)
SDAI-Tech1
Here's Lileks on topic.
The minute I heard Biden refer to Rumsfeld with the magic words - “what did he know, and when did he know it?” - I knew that the Iraqi POW story had jumped the shark. Or rather jumped a pyramid of blindfolded, homoerotic sharks. It’s not the question, it’s the words: use of the Vietnam and Watergate era terms are like an incarnation that will topple the current administration. I almost expect someone to ask whether there is a cancer on the presidency, a chancre, or a weeping mole. Stop it! STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!
What really bastes my brisket (did I just write that? I need a beer.) is the constant desire to return us to the nadir of the post-war era. They want us to think: quagmire. They want us to think: Nixonian scandal. How inspirational. How Churchillian. I have nothing to offer the American people but blood, sweat and Billy Beer.
But worst of all is the suggestion that Rumsfeld should resign. Stupid for two reasons: 1. He doesn’t have a bogeyman rep with the general electorate. In fact I’d guess that your average swing voter likes the guy – he doesn’t deal in Beltway blatherations, for starters. Some people liked to make fun of his foray into epistemology – “There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know
we don't know.”
Makes perfect sense to me. I’m serious. I like a guy who’s smart enough to entertain the concept of unknown unknowns, because it means he’s thinking (all together now!) out of the box. Or out of the Pentagon.
He also handles the press well, which irritates the inner party of the Beltway media but amuses the red states. And he grins. He has that flinty-dad vibe. He’s the guy flipping burgers at the grill who overhears something you say and makes an interesting remark that might be a compliment, and might be an insult – might be both. That grin doesn’t tell you much. It’s the sort of persona that would make you gulp hard if you were picking up his daughter for a date, but if you passed the test you’d feel as though you’d earned some rare respect.
But more importantly, 2. He’s the guy who’s attempting to reform the Pentagon, and make it limber enough to meet the challenges of The War. Does Joe Biden have a better plan for the Pentagon? Would Joe Biden be a better SecDef in the Kerry Administration? If so: evidence, please. If not, then his calls for Rumsfeld to consider stepping down might be - gasp – partisan positioning. That Biden would float the idea of axing Rumsfeld in the middle of this confliict over this tells you how seriously he takes the war. He knows what he says won’t bring victory next year. But it will get him on TV tonight, and perhaps in the Times tomorrow.
Priorities, don’t you know. Priorities.
As for what did they know, etc. – Mudville has an excellent timeline. (Via Reynolds' Wrap.)
And then there is this.
The partisan calls for Rumsfeld to resign do great dishonour to those who make them. They are the actions of hysterical panderers to terror.
Those who mistreated the prisoners and those who turned a blind eye will be prosecuted by courts martial, and that is the proper outcome of all this.
Those who are saying that Rumsfeld should not be held accountable in any way simply because he did not personally order the atrocities are missing the point. It is a matter of leadership. When one holds a position of leadership such as Rumsfeld's, it's more than just your personal behavior that you are accountable for. Sometimes a leader does have to be held accountable for the actions of his/her subordinates. To compare this situation to the governor of a state being held accoutable for the actions of schoolchildren on a field trip halfway around the world is silly. The governor is not the commanding officer of the school children, who we expect to misbehave at times. These were adults, representing the United States of American in an official capacity. I reserve judgment on whether Rummy should resign at this time, although I do think it warrants an investigation. If it is proven that he helped create the circumstances that allowed this to happen or even permitted the circumstances to exist then he should go. I think a special prosecutor is what is called for at this time.
(just like the Democrat party)
Posted by Patrick in CA
That's "Democratic party". Only yahoos say "Democrat party".
Only yahoos don't know that its name is "Democrat" not 'democratic'. When you refer to them in the plural you say Democrats not democratics.
Any way whatever you or they call themselves they continue to show how venal and selfcentered and self promoting they have become by their daliy actions and pronouncements. Probably a better name for the once proud Democrat Party would be "Dumbocrats' or 'Dimocrats'
Just my considered opinion
Eamon O'Brochlain wrote:
Those who are saying that Rumsfeld should not be held accountable in any way simply because he did not personally order the atrocities are missing the point.
Those who accuse others of saying that Rumsfeld should not be held accountable in any way are simply setting up a strawman argument.
He’s the guy flipping burgers at the grill who overhears something you say and makes an interesting remark that might be a compliment, and might be an insult – might be both.
Norman Rogers --
Right on, brother. It's posts like yours that keep me coming back here since Megan refuses to post any pictures of herself. The whole thing was very nicely said. And accurate.
Tim,
I absolutely cannot believe that on a website entitled "live at the world trade centers" you would write that we are all safe and never in any real danger to begin with. Tell that to the people that died in the WTC and the Pentagon.
It appears that partisan hatred has warped your brain.
Eamon,
Neither is Rumsfeld the commanding officer of the idiots who committed abuses. That was my point. Rumsfeld is as far removed as the governor of the teachers of a school in LA having a field trip across the world.
And Eamon, Get the analogy right. I was talking about adult teachers not the students.
Not only that.... But I just found out today that 5 of the 6 known perps were already charged before yesterday and face a court martial.
That doesn't sound like the people who were supposed to be doing their jobs (the commanders and generals in the field) were covering up anything or not holding the people responsible.
As usual the press and the Democrat party (Democratic shmatic) are scapegoating, twisting, and accusing instead of leading, offering solutions, or being helpful to America.
The Democrats who are making this ridiculous charge should resign due to imcompentence and willful tearing of the country down.
Pat, you are correct, I did misquote you and incorrectly state your analogy and for that I apologize, but it is still wrong even as correctly stated. A teacher is generally not a direct employee of the governor of a state. In public schools, teachers are usually the employees of a local school board, which represents the people in that district. While the state surely has input, the governor is not directly or indirectly in charge of teachers. Rumsfeld, is however, responsible, indirectly, for the U.S. military. Whether he has any real culpability, I don't know yet. That's why I want an investigation. It appears at the least that Rumsfeld witheld information on this issue, as he intends to apologize to the Congress for "not keeping lawmakers informed about the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal." (source CNN). He may not have caused the problem, but clearly, he didn't do enough to help investigate and expose it.
Eamon, In the state of California the teachers of employees of the state of California. In the military the enlisted are employees of the Department of the branch of service they are in.
The military enlisted are futher removed from Rumsfeld than the teachers of Arnold S. IMHO.
I hope that during the investigation you can listen to how the military operates. You can see in earlier posts that I write that the commanding officer of a command (when I was in the Navy) is the officer that holds the enlisted folks who violate the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) accountable. There are many layers of officers above a commanding officer. In the Navy there are admirals of the fleet, of the region, etc. etc.
And given that there are disciplinary actions that commanding officers have to take on a weekly basis if not daily sometimes because there are so many guys in a command, the disciplinary actions taken by the commanding officers aren't usually (in any great detail) going much past a few more officers up.
The fact that anyone in these posts think that Rumsfeld is the one who was responsible for disciplining anyone or, covering up anything, ordering these actions, shows how partisan they are.
Sure investigate. But listen to Rumsfelds words for once.
If you want to get the cook fired, hire a dishwasher to dump salt in the gravy?
Rumsfeld should resign only if a specific order he issued could have been the specific reason the abuses happened. Only one vague hint in that direction here.
Political Partisan Mean Spirited Leftists They are mad that they are out of power.
They haven't been in power really since 1994. Before that they had most of the power from the Great Depression to 1994.
The left continues to get more and more cooky and hurtful to this country.
*sigh* Megan's drift to the left continues -- a development almost as depressing as the photos themselves...
Isn't it though? Especially since this post seems to be based on the long-debunked Arab Street Paradigm.
That's the lefty notion that heavily disincentivizing something causes people to do more of it out of pure cussedness. The Arab Street Paradigm.
Ahhh... Could our Jane really believe in such a thing?
Is she joining the New Class?
Say it ain't so!
Pat, your passion for Rummy is admirable, but misses several key points.
(1) Rummy doesn't matter. In what sense, at all, is Rummy indispensable? He is a sound, tough civilian administrator, not seriously responsible for strategic or tactical planning, and not terribly close to anyone on the front lines as a figurehead to rally around. His leaving would compromise nothing, in that there are literally dozens of persons who can step into this position, including his immediate staff.
(2) Rummy's personal culpability, or not, is irrelevant. Don't forget that GB is seriously vulnerable on the accountability issue. He literally spearheaded the most controversial aspects of his famed education programs on the significance of measurement and accountability, and on the premise that no excuse or explanation matters when the results are bad -- a bad school just has to go. The 9-11 commission issues were reasonably diffused, but not forever, without a claim of accountability.
In short, Rummy may not have been culpable or personally responsible for causing the bad news, but he was responsible to the president, both to prevent awful, horrible non-beneficial mistakes like this from happening, and to honestly and honorably handle such things when they do occur. In the military, you only delegate authority -- the responsibility, you keep.
The world despises us, and properly so, for these actions. We must show that this is also an anathema to us. The way to do so is by contrition, and this means a serious measure of accountability. If our nation is truly contrite, we must show that this is so, and in a manner well beyond our routine administration of military justice (which should happen whether or not we were contrite).
A deeper problem than the act itself is the fact that (i) facts of a criminal investigation were classified; and (ii) unclassified facts were withheld, not only from the media, but apparently the chief executive himself. This cover-up, and it is undoubtedly that, is probably the biggest problem Rummy faces.
Rummy is responsible, whether or not he is culpable. If the responsibility is to mean anything, his response must be consistent with the magnitude of the problem. The mission, and the nation, and in particular, this President, would best be served by the prompt resignation of this man. The loss of at least one responsible -- if not culpable -- cabinet officer, and no less, is necessary if anyone is to take our apology seriously.
Not only must he resign, he must resign with extreme contrition. He needs to personally take the heat, all of it. For the environment and the cover-up. He must then, at least claim the heat for the act itself, symbolically, so that the honor and national reputation issues are addressed, and so that the process of meeting out individual justice is routinely and fairly handled in ordinary course.
Anything less, make no mistake about this, could ultimately cripple Rummy's boss, and the nation itself. If you love this president so, respect the political realities of this situation, and make the CLEARLY necessary sacrifice.
I agree that Bush should not fire him -- Rummy should resign.
But for any of this to do any good at all -- at least as a show of necessary national contrition -- it has to happen NOW. It may already be too late.
Andy,
1) I never said that Rummy is indispensable. I believe he is the right man for the job. I believe that others could do the job as well. I just do not believe others have proved he did something wrong that would be causal for dismissal.
2) Rummy's culpability is relevant. You don't just have a press corp and Democratic leadership beat drums for someone to be removed without culpability.
The magnitude of the problem? That is what brings up actual killing of Chinese embassy people in Yugoslavia. That is what brings up actual killing and then desecrating of the dead U.S. soldiers in Fallujah. The magnitude of the problem? That is why I brought up the hazing that goes on every ship crossing the equator, others mentioned college fraternity's.
Sure what the soldiers did was wrong. They WERE BEING PUNISHED, COURT MARTIALLED etc. There was nobody that we know that was not doing their job as an officer.
People disagree with you. I think he needs to stand up to the people calling for his head including you.
Perspective is what is needed. We need to use this opportunity just like Lieberman did today. Liberman on the panel questioned why we haven't received an apology from the people or their families or the governments of the 9/11 terrorists. I applaud Lieberman and I think others need to get that sense of perspective quick before our war is so undermined with the Andy's of the world that we lose.
National Contrition? Bush already apologized and expressed disgust and so did Rumsfeld. Where is the Islamic or National contrition for what happened in Fallujah to our soldiers, the USS Cole, September 11th, the African Embassies, etc.
People actually got killed there and we don't see a word of apology.
We need to use this opportunity to start saying what we as Americans expect, what the Press has done, what the perspective by ALL SHOULD BE.
People can disagree but the president and everyone around him should take the opportunity to set the record and perspective straight.
That's "Democratic party". Only yahoos say "Democrat party".
Only yahoos don't know that its name is "Democrat" not 'democratic'. When you refer to them in the plural you say Democrats not democratics.
Only a total ignoramus or someone who enjoys being rude would not follow the correct usage when referring to the party to which Democrats belong.
I just heard a good one on Michael Medved.
A caller said:
We don't need to punish the wrong-doers we need to understand them and why they did it. HA!
Heard something else:
If Bush dumped Rumsfeld or Rumsfeld resigned, Bush's "Secretary of Defense" nominee would NOT BE CONFIRMED by the Senate.
Not only that but they would USE THE CONFIRMATION HEARINGS as a PROXY IMPEACHMENT TRIAL on Bush.
Explain Jane or any other liberal how that wouldn't be true. You liberals have proven that this would be true.
You are so full of hate for a good man.
First Megan plays footsie with John Kerry, now this. As another famous Andy once said, "I'se regusted!"
If Bush dumped Rumsfeld or Rumsfeld resigned, Bush's "Secretary of Defense" nominee would NOT BE CONFIRMED by the Senate.
At least not during a presidential election year.
Just to reiterate though, we have had far worse things happen under previous Sec Defs such as the bombing of refugee caravans in the Balkans (you know, in which people were actually killed) because of the previous administration’s policies of flying so high as to avoid American casualties but at the expense of accuracy – none of which lead to any serious cries for “resignation.”
This is simply posturing for the cameras just like the 9/11 commission and should be ignored as such.
Make that "written off" rather than "ignored"
Thor,
I keep mentioning the Chinese Embassy being bombed (where actual people were killed), but I keep forgetting about what you mentioned, the refugee caravan being bombed while Secretary of Defense Cohen was on duty.
One point on this. Because of Clinton/Cohen's "method" of war, there was a humanitarian crisis with masses of refugees migrating from place to place and camping in the Red Cross camp areas with the hundred's of thousands of refugees sufferring. Suffering. And being killed by errant bombs. There were pictures. There was video.
There were Chinese who were very unhappy with us screaming for an apology. There were refugees who were hated us. We needed at that time to have a national contrition emitted by Clinton with Cohen resigning for his "incompetence".....
One point on writing off the posturing. We shouldn't. We need to offer our perspective and remembrance of history and did I say perspective to get to as many people on the fence as possible.
Even those who are leftists might be pursuaded by us. I was actually a liberal before 1991. I was pursuaded. And now more than any time in history we need to take up these CLEAR issues with EASE in order to convince others.
If we hand the Islamists a victory, the descent from greatness will have begun. You think it is rough bring Big Dog? You don't wanna be underdog.
The democrats want to drive so much that they will give the pink slip away to accomplish it.
Sorry Jane. You and The Economist are wrong on this one. Rumsfeld is the best thing that's happened at the Pentagon in decades. To ask for his resignation for something that happened 40 levels down in his organization is simply ridiculous. He is having the incidents investigated, will uncover the truth, and initiate actions that will help prevent future occurrences. He's a man who has served his country honorably and well, and Bush will stand by him despite the Democrats' cry for his head on a platter.
What does "taking full responsibility" mean? Where does the buck stop? Do those Americans who support Rumsfeld not realise the effect that these revelations is having globally. How many fucking enemies do you guys want?
Rumsfeld should resign now. And America should start to build bridges with the Arab world before it is too late. Perhaps if I could put it this way. The more trouble in the middle east = higher gas prices. GET IT?
hi pat in ca,
"Explain Jane or any other liberal how that wouldn't be true. You liberals have proven that this would be true.
You are so full of hate for a good man."
it is of course possible that some folks would love to see such an outcome (re using rumsfield's resignation as an opportunity to impeach the president). some liberals to be sure. then, on the other hand, some conservatives wanted clinton expelled from office as well. plenty of conservative folks thought that the impeachment process was not a good thing for the country. i would be against an impeachment of our president, if for no other reason than that it is an election year, and we will be able to choose in november.
so in answer to your question, i couldn't give you a guarantee. people might try to use rumsfield as a wedge to get at the president. i think that would be a mistake. clinton's impeachment was seen by many as purely political in nature; and it bred a tremendous amount of resentment. And, most importantly, as a huge distraction it was critically detrimental to the executive function and the country and its long-term security. people have a tendency to go "tit for tat." i hope that those opposing bush resist that temptation. in any case, i am pretty certain that it would be a small number who would actually be willing to support such an action.
is rumsfield a good man? i don't know exactly: what do you mean by good? that he has a moral sense, that he is good to his friend and has a streak of generosity? i watched him at the hearing. he appeared genuine to my eyes. i sensed that he had really struggled with the resignation question. i respect that.
but if by "good" doing his job effectively, then we will just agree to disagree. i do not have to hate mr. rumsfield to want him gone from his post. i do not have to hate mr. bush to also wish to see him leave. i disagree with you concerning their perceived and actual competency. you think differently. that is ok.
Perhaps we could try some balancing views here? It seems that one of our Iraqi bloggers has a friend who worked at the prison.
Abu Gharib, other parts of the picture.
I know I'm in on this post late, but I have to disagree with the call for Runsfeld to resign. Here is the first SecDef in a long time to attempt to reassert civilian control of the military, and on the basis of a rogue element in AlGhraib and poor professionalism by the military--exactly the behaviour Rumsfeld is seeking to offset--you want him to go? Nope. Bad call. Let him get on and do what he's trying to do.
I've been giving this some serious thought, and I've concluded that the calls for Rumsfeld to resign are premature. I would rather see an investigation and a serious examination of policies that are set from the top down.
More than one commentator has noted that abuses like those in Abu Ghraib likely stem from politices that were set at the outset of the war. Chief among these policies was the decision to classify most prisoners as "detainees" or "unlawful combatants" rather than "prisoners of war." When organizations like Human Rights Watch and the Red Cross objected to this, the response was a general "meh," along with an assurance that the United States certainly un